Home - Vermonters for Better Education Home - David Kirkpatrick's pages Index School Choice Articles

There is legitimate concern about school laws and regulations that are unworkable, unnecessary, or otherwise in need of revision or repeal. An interesting inconsistency in this regard is how the states treat the K-12 public schools, for which they are constitutionally responsible, but where much of the management is delegated to local school boards, compared to their oversight of state colleges and universities which they own outright.

Controls on K-12 schools are often lengthy and complex -- reportedly nearly 9,000 pages in California. These range from fairly major areas, such as the requirement for certified teachers and the mandate for a school year of 180 days, give or take a few, to points so minor that many states leave them to local option. Yet state colleges and universities, which spend far more money per pupil, are left largely free to go their own way. They not only hire uncertified faculty, as but one example, but do so for the education professors who prepare potential public school teachers for the certification requirements. That is, the uncertified teach the uncertified to become certified.

In this debate the emphasis is often on the negative, the harmful effects or the outright ineffectiveness and uselessness of the regulations. To a large degree this is appropriate since it is generally agreed there is a great deal of improvement that could be made by abolishing or amending such red tape. Whatever else they may do, regulations increase the costs of operating the public schools by many billions of dollars annually, much of it wasted.

But, since regulations, like death and taxes, are certain, can they not at least be rational and beneficial? Some time ago, John Gardner, member-at-large of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin School Board, had an interesting and unusual suggestion: that consideration be given by school reformers to regulations that might be needed. This doesn't mean more regulations since, as noted below, he strongly agrees that not just many but most of the existing ones should be eliminated.

However, it isn't sufficiently recognized that the public school establishment is responsible for the creation of most if not all of the regulations to which it claims to object. At the same time educators are ever ready to promote more legislation, as can be shown by a review of bills introduced in any legislative session. While only a legislator can introduce a bill, most of the suggestions for them come from members of the education establishment. In the case of programs they don't like, such as charter schools, being unable to abolish them, they are always eager to amend them to be as ineffective as possible.

Here are Gardner's suggestions for four regulations he says are needed. They are:

1. Public, verifiable, comparable data on what happens to graduates of schools after they leave their respective schools, whether by graduation, disappearing, incarceration, or death. This is the mega-question and issue, the ultimate "result" and "product" of education in general, and we don't even look at it -- largely because it would tell us we're doing far, far worse than anyone in the educartel wants public, acknowledged, or visible.

2. Public, verifiable, comparable data about enrollment, attendance, academic skills, and promotions/graduations across all public education sectors -- "public" (governmental), "private" (non-governmental, no matter how funded; many "private" schools are more "public" than their governmental counterparts in real terms); religious (what we should arguably be calling "parochial" schools); independent (non-governmental schools committed to the goals of public education); and home.

3. Clear, consistent statements of what academic skills are considered proficient, and how students can demonstrate proficiency and pass beyond them.

4. How much money, from all governmental sources, is actually spent, per student, per year, per school, by a consistent, GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) reporting method.

Not to overlook the common view that much that is in place is unneeded and/or unwise, he provided the following addendum:

"Here's what we don't need:"

1. Teacher licensure requirements, conditions, and restrictions.

2. Curriculum specifications, including numbers of hours of instruction, numbers of hours

3. Building codes beyond health, safety, and access.

4. Just about anything else.

He concluded by writing: "I think you may well want to think about not only how stupid are most of the regulations we currently have, but how they systemically avoid dealing with the ones we really need for authentic public oversight and visibility of what should, after all, be public education.

A contrarian piece on regulations we do not have might raise the embarrassing question of why we don't have them. I believe I already know: Because we don't want them."

While the present system endures what we need most of all are more board members like John Gardner.

Copyright 2002 David W. Kirkpatrick
108 Highland Court,
Douglassville, Pennsylvania 19518-9240
Phone: (610) 689-0633